Audio Research Reference 160S power amplifier

This, our February issue, is the first Stereophile issue to arrive during the year 2020, which marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of Audio Research—in my view one of the key events in the history of high-end audio. So it makes sense for this issue to include an Audio Research review—in this case, of the $20,000 Reference 160 S stereo amplifier.

Following an auspicious start, hi-fi in the '60s got complicated. It went backward by going forward. Hi-fi expanded to reach a larger audience. But it did so partly by going mid-fi, with a focus on style, convenience, and broad appeal. Technological advances also took hi-fi back. Believe what you want about today's tube-vs-transistors debate: Back then it was no contest. "Solid state" audio—remember that trademark on all those cheap plastic radios?—made things smaller, lighter, sleeker, and cooler—that last one in both senses of the word—but it damaged sound quality. And yet, even though transistors were not ready for audio prime time, tubed electronics already were looking like yesterday's technology.

That was the world Audio Research Corporation (ARC) was born into. From the start, ARC and its founder, William Zane Johnson, embodied values that have come to be embedded in high-end audio's fundamental ethos.

"Bill's goal was simple: to constantly advance the state-of-the-art in music reproduction," David Gordon, Audio Research's current brand ambassador, wrote to me in an email. "He did this through innovative new circuit design combined with new transformer and custom parts designs." For a company to design its own internal parts was unusual—and remains so—as was the notion that specific capacitor and wiring choices could affect the sound quality of an amplifier. ARC would soon be designing its own capacitors, wire, and transformers.


Also new was the idea that measurements should not be the final arbiter—that the best way to hear things was with our ears: another idea Johnson advocated

The ARC Reference series
"As an engineer, [Johnson] believed each product must have good specifications as a foundation, but good specifications alone did not assure good sound quality," Gordon's email continued. "As a pianist, Bill wanted to replicate the sound of live music, which required wide bandwidth and big power supplies with lots of regulation. Audio Research tube products were not meant to act as euphonic filters; they were meant to be transparent, with great bandwidth, and the regulated power supplies allowed the micro- and macro-dynamics to bring music to life."

Over the years, Audio Research has produced many amplification products, but a handful stand out, most of all, perhaps, the Dual 150 "High Definition" stereo amplifier, from 1975. The D-150 weighed 115lb, and, with its meters, knobs, and front-panel fuse holders, resembled a piece of precision scientific equipment.

Sonically, too, the D-150 aspired to precision—to precise reproduction of the input signal. The notion that precision and musicality are aligned, not opposed, was one of Johnson's key commitments.

J. Gordon Holt apparently was convinced. Writing in Stereophile, he described the D-150 as sounding like "Nothing. Nothing at all. If it has any sound of its own at all, we were unable to hear it, on the most revealing speaker systems we could round up." This was the tube amplifier that, more than any other I'm aware of in the whole history of hi-fi, made the case that sonic accuracy and not a euphonic, romanticized presentation was the route to musical enjoyment. It also helped make the case that transistor-based amplifiers weren't gettin' the job done circa 1975. The D-150's high aspirations were clear from the product brochure: "Only a few audiophiles will pay the price for a product that is 'state-of-the-art' in performance and quality." No surprise: In his review of the D-150, JGH called its price—$2685, or about $13,000 in today's dollars—"murderous." Sounds like a statement product to me.

But at some point over the next 20 years—perhaps as they began to consider the introduction of the new Reference series—a new theme emerged at Audio Research. In a 1994 Stereophile interview with then–Technical Editor Robert Harley, Bill Johnson said that it hadn't made sense to make a no-holds-barred product until a reliable supply of high-quality tubes could be secured. That had happened the previous year, when a Russian version of the 6550C tube was (re)introduced. Two years after that, Audio Research released its first Reference-series component, the Reference 600. If the price of the D-150 was murderous, the Reference 600 monoblock was a Gatling gun. A pair of Reference 600 monoblocks cost $29,990/pair, about $50,000 in today's dollars. Circa 2020, there may be much more expensive amplifiers on the market—including the $170,000/pair darTZeel monoblocks we put on the cover of our December issue—but in 1995 that was an impressive price. (That year's Stereophile Amplification Component of the Year was another Audio Research amplifier, the much cheaper—$11,990/pair—VT-150 monoblock.)

2020, then, isn't just Audio Research's 50th anniversary; it's also the 25th anniversary of the company's Reference line. And the product I'm reviewing—the Reference 160 S—is that line's newest component. This is its worldwide review debut.

And while it's hardly inexpensive at $20,000, in a historical context it looks like a relative bargain.

Plus ça change
The 160 S has an antecedent that's much more immediate than the D-150 or even the Reference 600: the Reference 160 M reviewed by Jason Victor Serinus in Stereophile's October 2018 issue. In fact, the 160 S is so like the 160 M—or, rather, like two of them stuffed into one chassis—that I considered writing this piece as a Follow-Up review. But stuffing two channels in one chassis is a nontrivial exercise, and there's a lot to say about the 160 S. So I decided to write a full review.

Audio Research has stuffed two 160s in a case that's only a little bit larger than one 160 M case—the same width and height, but 3" deeper. Those extra inches make the 160 S exceptionally deep: With the added rear handles, the 160 S extends 24" front to back. That shape gives it a unique look and could create placement challenges. Before you buy, figure out where you're going to put it. You may need to acquire an extra-deep component rack or amplifier stand (although the feet will sit on a normal 21" stand).

Otherwise, there are few important differences between the M and the S. The M, of course, has a separate power supply for each channel, and separate power cords, whereas there is one power transformer in the 160 S and one power cord (footnote 1). The output transformers are mounted higher up on the S than they are on the M, to make room for some extra power supply capacitors underneath. Also, here, the transformers are covered by a perforated metal cage—not so on the monoblock version. The M version has handles only on the front, but the S version adds handles on the back to help with handling the longer, heavier, back-heavy product.

Some owners of the 160 M have learned that they can get away with leaving the cooling fan turned off, as long as they keep the cover off so that heat can dissipate quickly. The S version, though, with twice as many tubes in about the same area, requires fans; there is no "off" position. I was able to keep the 160 S's two fans on "low" throughout my listening, however, and I didn't once hear them.

Perhaps the most important difference between the 160 S and the 160 M is the price: A pair of monoblocks will set you back $30,000, but when you buy the single-chassis version, you get the same features, same power, and nearly the same performance—"sonically they're very close," Gordon told me—for $20,000. Buy one channel, get the second channel at 50% off.T he things that set both Reference 160 models apart from their Reference-series forebears are far more significant than the differences between the S and the M. To wit:

• The 160 power supply is more robust.

• Those house-made passive components have been tweaked for better sound. That includes transformers, which are made to spec by a domestic company; some of these have been improved compared to previous Reference-series parts.

• The auto-bias circuit has been updated, resulting, Gordon says, in longer tube life and, it is claimed, better sonics due to a reduction in residual DC currents in the output transformer.

• Gordon told me that the 160 M and 160 S both use a new, four-layer circuit board, "which allows for more optimal signal routing, with a smaller footprint, and less noise, thanks to the separate ground plane."

• A single-ended (RCA) input has been added—a first for an ARC Reference-series amplifier.

• The 160 M and 160 S amps are the first Audio Research amplifiers to allow switching between triode and Ultralinear operation.

Those early ARC amplifiers, especially the D-150, could be tricky to use. It was necessary to bias the tubes, of course, but D-150 users also had to select, via a front-panel knob, the correct AC operating voltage for their locale—the setting closest to but not lower than the actual voltage going into the amp, which was displayed on the middle of three meters.

In contrast, using the Reference 160 S could hardly be simpler. You, or your dealer, must install the tubes—and then there's almost nothing else to do, other than to replace them every few thousand hours (footnote 2). Back-panel mechanical toggle switches let you set the fan speed, activate the auto-off feature (which, when activated, turns the amp off after two hours with no signal, extending tube life), and choose between the balanced (XLR) and unbalanced (RCA) inputs. You can read the number of hours your tubes have been in use from a recessed back-panel LCD display.


On the front panel, you can set the brightness of the lit-up power meters or turn those lights off completely. You can push the Tube Monitor button to check tube operation: If all is well, eight green lights light up on the front panel, one for each KT150 tube.

And then there is the big decision: triode or Ultralinear?

Tube-audio experts, please indulge me while I briefly explain what this means. The KT150 tube is a tetrode, which means it has two grids instead of just one as in a triode. You can turn it into a triode by electrically connecting the screen grid—the grid closest to the plate—to the plate. Alternatively, you can apply a constant voltage to the screen grid and you have pentode operation, used by many Audio Research amplifiers.

Footnote 1: The 160 S's single power cord is thick, apparently well-shielded—and terminated on the amplifier end with a "C19" IEC connector. Gordon told me they chose the C19 connector because it "makes a very solid chassis connection and sounds better than the C15"—C15 is the standard IEC connection used by almost all other audio components. This is something to keep in mind if you're accustomed to using aftermarket power cords, since the standard ones won't work here.

Footnote 2: 4 ARC says the KT-150s should be replaced every 3000 hours, and the 6H30s every 4000. There's an hour meter around back.

Audio Research Corp.
6655 Wedgwood Road N., Suite 115
Maple Grove, MN 55311
(763) 577-9700

Bogolu Haranath's picture

May be JCA could review the new Rotel Michi M8 mono-block amps, 1080 WPC into 8 Ohms and 1800 WPC into 4 Ohms, $14,000/pair :-) ........

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Also, JCA could review the new McIntosh MC901, tube/transistor amplifier, $17,500 :-) .......

volvic's picture

The best sound at any show I ever heard came from an AR integrated along with an AR CD9? CD player, paired with Verity Audio speakers. CD after CD played revealed detail and lifelike presentation that no system at any show I've attended has ever matched. I can only imagine how good this combo sounds. I wish I could borrow for a month and call in sick from work for 22 straight days.

Ortofan's picture

... irresistible could well be the characteristics of the polypropylene plastic cones used in the mid-range and woofer drivers of the Verity Audio speakers combined with a dose of second harmonic "sauce" generated by the ARC electronics.

For comparison, try Spendor or Harbeth speakers driven by a tube amp.

volvic's picture

Not sure how to respond, but at the same show in another room were the more prominent Verity Audio speakers with Nagra tube amplification and DCS digital front end and it did not sound as intimate as the smaller Verity's with the ARC electronics. As for Harbeth, they are one of my faves and have heard them with the top end Rega electronics, they sound beautiful and I want them but none of them captured that sound in that room that day. I suppose this was one perfectly matched system, but I do not doubt that the ARC integrated tube amp and CD9 contributed significantly to that fantastic sound. I have not heard ARC in any other configuration, but if they all sound like that, then I am sold.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

William Z is smiling :-) ......

nirodha's picture

Not surprising... dCS is the antithesis of musicallity ;-). Nagra, on the other hand, is a synonym of this elusive term.

volvic's picture

This was back in 2008 or 2009, don't exactly remember, it was a while ago, maybe the dcs gear back then had a different sound, I am no expert in that gear. But it didn't have the "I could almost reach out and touch the musicians" feel the way the cheaper ARC/Verity combo did.

nirodha's picture

Have to admit that my experience of dCS was also some time ago but now I have been playing with a Nagra CDP, I know what I missed in the "old days". But it is all subjective, if dCS touches your heart, go for it. If it doesn't, steer away from it.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

You can get '22 Days Nutrition' organic nutrition bars and powder, for 22 straight days :-) .........

volvic's picture

So maybe they might help. First, someone has to lend me the amps.

MhtLion's picture

Jim - thanks for the great review. Do you have any comparison to other amps? Not that I don't trust what you heard, which you have very good skills at describing. But, in this subjective hobby of ours, it provides tremendous value when you compare it against other options the readers may have or other well-known amps. You have Pass Labs XA60.8, which is another amp known to produce a beautiful sound. How did ARC compare against it in its sonic bliss? You also have PS Audio BHK 300, which has a great dynamic. How did ARC compare against it on dynamic or driver grip? I would very much appreciate it if you can add some comparison. Because without a meaningful comparison, a review can be just too subjective or personal.

Ortofan's picture

... with distortion levels approaching those of the Benchmark AHB2?
If so, would it be likely to exhibit the same sort of "musicality" and/or "tonal beauty" that JA2 has observed from the Reference 160S?

Regarding the "impressive price" of $30K for a pair of ARC Reference 600 monoblocks in the mid-1990s, back then there were other manufacturers offering monoblock amps at that price point - and well above.
Among them were the Accuphase M-100 ($30K), Audire Monarch ($60K), Denon POA-S1 ($40K), Jadis JA-500 ($35K) Krell Audio Standard ($35K) and, last but not least, the Audio Note Gaka-On ($250K).

Bogolu Haranath's picture

You are missing the whole point ........ The fundamental idea of a tube amp is not to measure and sound like a transistor amp :-) ........

Ortofan's picture

... measure and what should it sound like?

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Even the best and experienced audio reviewers (and measurers) don't know the answer :-) .......

Ortofan's picture

... Hafler type straight wire differential tests - with the amp under evaluation connected to Stereophile's standard simulated loudspeaker load.

The amp which achieves the best measured null on that test will then be the "best" amp.

If two, or more, amps should happen to exhibit similar performance on the null test, then move on to blind, level-matched comparisons.

Otherwise, the reviewers can keep on performing uncontrolled listening tests on different amps, in different systems and with different music all the while trying to select the one that sounds to them to be the most pleasant - in spite of audible levels of distortion and frequency response that varies with load.

Jack L's picture


"..... amplifiers to allow switching between triode and Ultralinear operation." quoted Jim Austin.

VTL got its tetrode power amps with switchable triode & tetrode operation decades back. How come ARC took so long to do so until now?

Likewise, I consider I have done the best ever sonic upgrade of my vintage Dynaco ST-70 35W+35W power amp by converting it to triode/pentode ultra-linear switchable over a decade ago.

That said, we should know the sonic downside of trioded pentode/tetrode by strapping the screen grid to its plate with a low-resistance resistor, a conventional way used by brandnamed amp manufacturers & DIYers alike since day one decades back. So the grid screen is working at a voltage almost the same as the plate.

I have read many reports criticizing such simple trioding method causing the sound somewhat soft, weak & punchless vs its original pentode/tetrode configuration. Unacceptable to my critical ears, to say the least.

To fix such sonic 'problem', I set the operating voltage of the screen grid, STABILIZED, LOWER than the plate as it were working as a pentode/tetrode. Ite is done by connecting the screen grid to the plate with a circuit of diodes, fast quality capacitors, & resistors.
I would label it as: "plate/screen grid split potential topology".

The key issue is: what is the proper voltage difference between the plate & the screen grid to get the best sound.

After enough trial & error, I finally get the right potential difference between the screen & the plate. It works like a chime: it sounds
fast, punchy & forceful like a pentode/tetrode & beats the latter by being more defined, smoother, & transparent like a real triode.

I have used it first in trioding my Dynaco ST-70 power amp & my ALL other later power amp projects. The trioded Dynaco sounds so good that I have left it switched to triode mode for ever.

Added merit: Such split potential triode conversion does not sound noticeably lower than its pentode mode though its output power is rated only half of its pentode operation !

Listening is believing

Jack L

JRT's picture
Jack_L wrote:

"To fix such sonic 'problem', I set the operating voltage of the screen grid, STABILIZED, LOWER than the plate as it were working as a pentode/tetrode. Ite is done by connecting the screen grid to the plate with a circuit of diodes, fast quality capacitors, & resistors"

Or instead of modifying a Dynaco/Dynakit, build an amplifier using a better output transformer with a separate center tapped winding for the screen grids, better providing for lower subregulated nominal voltage well below the B+ rail voltage powering the anodes. And you can get that output transformer with cathode tapes, separate windings for the cathodes.

The old Audio Research VT 150 SE had all of that. Not sure about the amplifier under review here.

Your old Dynaco/Dynakit amplifier was built to sell at a much lower price point and did not have those features, rather saved on build cost with only two windings, primary and secondary, with multiple taps.

If you want to DIY, consider using Menno van der Veen's VDV-2100-CFB-SSCR-PPS.

Jack L's picture

....... a better output transformer.." quoted JRT.

You are comparing apple to orange, my friend!

I said "UPgrade" but you meant to say "Rebuild". We are in different wavelengths.

Tons of so called "upgrades" (which were actually "rebuilds) of Dynaco
since day one half a decade back. It involved rebuilding the entire driver board with different tubes, replacing the original output & even power transformers, etc etc. So such drastic rebuild made Dynaco sounded
like something else. Gone was the original famous award-winning Dynaco sound.

What I have done to my Dynaco was to maintain its original sonic signature by keeping the major crucial components, e.g. driver board, output & power transformers.

The most substantial sonic improvement was to convert the Dynaco ST-70 to triode & pentode switchable using my unique design/built "plate/screen grid split potential topology". Triode sound is always much better than pentode sound even using the very expensive brandnamed ultra-linear output transformers. I achieved the sonic improvement yet saved a bundle.

Any other upgrades I also did would be icing on Dynaco's cake, e.g. replacing all passive parts, e.g. now using polypropylene metal-film coupling capacitors, film resistors, fast recovery silicon rectifiers, HV motor-run OIL filter caps (replacing the vintage HV multi electrolytic cap) etc.

Much improved sound the Dynaco style without need to spend a bundle to replace major items.

Listening is believing

Jack L

tonykaz's picture

...those see thru Meterings.

I've owned large ARC Amps, they look & give off the "I'm a certified audiophile" feeling with publicly claiming "ARC ownership" a Statement of audiophile authenticity but it might be more bluster than ultimate performance. I've heard a few ARC Electronic Based Systems that didn't perform as hoped or expected.

It might be simpler to build around KRELL or PS Audio or PASS gear because they lack tubes. ( and solid state devices last forever-- as claimed by Nelson Pass )

Tube life of 3,000 hours seems rather hopeful. 3,000 hours could equate to a Decade or likely less than 2 years of 5 hour listening days. So, a spare set of Tubes needs standing-by. My experience would predict less than 1,000 hours.

Tube Amp buyers are Brave, I have to hand it to them, especially if they are running those pricy KT150s.

Tony in Venice

ps. those Glass Meters are gorgeous Impulse buyer magnets & so are the Diavialet Amps with their remote control and wall mounting.

Jack L's picture

.......Tube life of 3,000 hours seems rather hopeful. 3,000 hours could equate to a Decade or likely less than 2 years of 5 hour listening days"

"Tube Amp buyers are Brave, I have to hand it to them, especially if they are running those pricy KT150s." quoted tonykaz.

First off, how long you owned yr tube gears before you switched to sold states ?

You worry about vacuum tube lifespan?

Let me tell you, the 60-year-young vintage Telefungen ECC83 tubes still work perfectly in my design/built phono-preamp, excellent sounding. It renders me timeless pleasure on my 1,000+ vinyl collection !

Yes, transistor amps may last "for ever" if you are lucky. But so what?
My critical ears can't tolerate the clinical sonic of any solid state amps, sorry !

Listening is believing

Jack L

tonykaz's picture

I've owned and maintained Tube Gear since the 1950s . I've owned Macintosh Tube gear that went thru tubes on a 6 month basis.

Tubes are our finest sounding Audio Amplifiers, which is why we still bother with them. They all tend to have differing sound qualities and can have magnificent singing "voices" ( my opinion ).

I do worry about Tube Life because they are so dam hard to find and tend to have such short "peak" lives, whilst great SS gear never seems to cease. ( I have seen recent unserviceable NAD SS gear fail and get tossed into Waste Management's infinite mountain)

People that achieve outstanding Sound Quality with factory serviceable Solid State Designs deserve the accolades they get.

Tony in Venice

ps. You have good fortune in the ECC83s you own ( maybe it's because you live in a humane Canada ) , great sounding ones will cost mucho dinero today. ( but they are out there as are great sounding SS gear )

ps.2) I know folks that have owned Tube gear only, no SS. They miss out on headroom but live a pleasant midrange life. ( my opinion )

Jack L's picture

..... out on headroom but live a pleasant midrange life. ( my opinion )"
quoted tonykaz.

Only your opinion is OK.

Yet I would like to change yr opinion on good tube amps.

This is what happened just a couple of weeks ago with my curious audio fans came by my home basement audio den, to audition first time how my home-brew 9W+9W SET (single-ended tube) power amp using 2x2A3 direct-heated triode power tubes would perform.

Making miraculous illusion like David Copperfield using a small 9W+9W tube power amp ?

It is real ! All I did some years back was to install 3x100W active subwoofers to L, R & L+R channels of my stereo system, all hooked up to my design/built stereo phono-preamp !

Here how my little "David" killed "Goliath".

I tried out the Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture on CD, with my 9W+9W amp + 3 subwoofers on. We could virtually feel the thouderous battlefield effect, with cannon cells virtually flying upfront right over & well beyond our heads. My audio fans dropped their jaws bigtime.

My wife came down to find out what was happening, saying:"The floor above was shaking!!!!"

Can a thousand watted solid state power amp produce such convincing climax effect ???

Listening is believing

Jack L

tonykaz's picture

I didn't realize that you are that differing type of old school DIY system builder able to extrapolate out and achieve your greatness.

There are only a small few of you advanced souls. You inhabit a unique world.

I am living in the world of "Pocket" systems but I know the delights of your pursuits. You'd be a gourmand if you we're a food guy. We should have a special name for y'all like we do for Ham Radio people that prefer ultra low power ( QRP )

Well, Mr. Jack, nice reading and writing to you here at the Stereophile's Campfire, I hope Mr.Dudley does a Story about you.

Tony in Venice

Jack L's picture

..... old school DIY system builder able to extrapolate out and achieve your greatness..." quoted tonykaz.

Thanks yr complement.

MY way: "Think OUTSIDE of the box !"

Jack L

Ortofan's picture

... tossed really unserviceable, or was the repair cost simply deemed too high relative to the price of a new replacement unit?

Also, a repair shop used to working on point-to-point wired tube equipment or solid-state products with through-hole circuit boards might take one glance at a unit populated with surface-mount devices and declare that it's unserviceable. However, just because they might not be equipped to fix it doesn't mean that no one can.

tonykaz's picture

I have/had a Servicemen : Morel TV in Farmington Michigan that is a critic of "modern" manufacturers selling gear that cannot be serviced. He is not alone, there are Youtube videos by Service Techs that clearly illustrate and Show how our electronics are sealed by the factory.

I'm asking Stereophile Editors to establish Serviceability as part of their review process.

Morel has a back room with stacks of Consumer Audio Gear that is unserviceable with owners not returning to collect their broken pieces.

Of course, some gear could be too costly to service but that is not what I'm referring to.

Some outfits ( Apple, I'm told ) attempts to block anyone from servicing their gear ( including legal blocks in Court Rooms ).

My point, my rant is that we should be allowed to know about service before we invest.

Sales outlets offer extended warrantees, for a stiff price but those warrantees get the owner a NEW box, not a repair. ( I think )

Are ALL NAD products serviceable? I don't think so.

Be careful about this.

This entire issue revolves around Chinese sourced products.

Tony in Venice

Ortofan's picture

... that you and/or the TV repair shop consider to be unserviceable?

NAD has been sourcing most, if not all, of its electronic product line from China for quite some time.

Looking at a few of the sites that have service manuals available for download, manuals are shown for many of those made-in-China NAD products.
One example is for the C368 integrated amp from the current product lineup:

tonykaz's picture

I'm not a NAD watchdog or watching any other brands ( for that matter ).

My concerns revolve around the trend of Manufacturers to block their products from the 3 Billion Dollar aftermarket Service industry and from their customers knowing about the unservability of their wonderful creations.

I am encouraging Stereophile's Management to include Service as part of the review process.

Some outfits : Schiit, PS Audio, Audio Research ( ARC ) are recognized for featuring Serviceability as part of their ownership experience. ( Apple doesn't seem to even allow their Schematics to be known )

On the plus side, our reviewers have mentioned that a reviewed device had defects needing attention ( sometimes considerable attention ).

Tony in Venice

David Harper's picture

The notion that the value and enjoyment of music has anything to do with the expense or sound quality of your playback system is the same as the notion that the value and enjoyment of a movie like "The Godfather" has anything to do with the expense or the resolution of the TV picture that you're watching it on.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

JCA could also review the conrad-johnson ART 150 stereo amp ($19,500) ........ About the same power output and about the same price of ARC 160S :-) ..........

Archguy's picture

From the review:

For a company to design its own internal parts was unusual—and remains so—as was the notion that specific capacitor and wiring choices sound quality. And yet, even though transistors were not could affect the sound of an amplifier.

Two consecutive sentences. Does anyone actually read these?

Jim Austin's picture

>>Two consecutive sentences. Does anyone actually read these?

Apparently they do--otherwise, how could you have noticed the errors? We call it beta testing. :-)

Seriously, it was perfect in print. Sometimes errors are introduced when copy is prepared for online publication. I'll fix it now.

Jim Austin, Editor